Last week I wrote about Philippe Petit and his walk on a wire between the Twin Towers of New York City so many years ago. I wanted to use his story as a metaphor for how happiness might best be thought of as balancing a clear-eyed expectation and preparedness for the bad things in life in order to fully embrace and celebrate the good. I talked about how the intense fear Philippe felt about his feat was one of the surprising facets about the documentary of the moment (Man on Wire).

A comment from a reader reminded me of one of the other surprising facets of that same movie. As I mentioned in that previous column, the documentary featured interviews with a cast of characters who made the Twin Towers walk possible. Archival footage of brainstorming and practice sessions were used to illustrate the extent to which this event was meticulously planned, and that risks were accepted by all concerned. When Philippe completed his walk on the wire, he was arrested, and swept into sudden fame.

The reader's comment began, more or less, by confronting the question "Who took the photographs of Philippe on the wire?" It should be clear that there were people helping him all along the way. And yet, as perpetrated by my column, they have been forgotten and excluded from the moment they helped create; left behind as Philippe embraced accolades for his feat. This is the second surprising thing about the documentary - watching these former friends, confidants, and allies attempt to explain the inexplicable rupture in their relationships with Philippe. In the most painful (for me) moment of the movie, Philippe tells how, immediately upon release from police custody, he had sex with the first female groupie who offered herself up to him while his longtime girlfriend waits for him back at the hotel. The closest of his friends still shed tears describing those moments when the idealistic dream of walking the wire became disappointing reality.

There was Annie Allix, Philippe's girlfriend, who was left behind after Philippe descended the towers. Jean Louis Blondeau helped plan the feat and was Philippe's friend for years. He helped lug the heavy cable, and launched the arrow that fed the guidewire to the second tower. He rigged the cable to be stable in the high winds at the top. There was Jim Moore, who was based in New York and did photographic reconnaisance. There were others, too, who were instrumental on that day, and through the years, to getting Philippe to the spot where he could dance on the wire above Manhattan.

This part of the tale is old news. We can't do it on our own, feats of greatness always seem to have a supporting cast. Could Michael Jordan have led the Chicago Bulls to a three-peat of NBA championships without Will Perdue? We may say yes, we may say no, but Will Perdue was on the team and on the court, so he has to be part of the conversation, right? Plus, being a taller-than-average guy who has an awkward tendency to dribble off his foot and has to cross his fingers to dunk, I needed a role model! (no offense to Mr. Perdue intended!)

Maybe the Michael Jordan-Will Perdue analogy has more to say, however, than just the fact that it takes a lot of support and direct involvement to pull off awe-inspiring accomplishments. Again, with no slight intended to Will Perdue, I think it's a lot more likely that Michael Jordan was going to win a title without Will Perdue than the reverse (this was actually proven in the extended careers of these pros). It is probably also a lot more likely that Philippe Petit could have walked on wire between two towers with a different set of friends and colleagues than the reverse. So, in trying to use this amazing feat to think about embracing the risk of living fully, I think it's defensible for me to have focused on Philippe.

However, there's a big difference from focusing on one person and completely neglecting everyone else. In this way I am just as guilty as Philippe. Being a researcher of meaningful living, it occurred to me that the forgotten backstory of Philippe Petit's walk on wire holds a lot of wisdom for the meaningful life.

There are a lot of ways to go with this: the importance of friends, 'no man is an island,' living life within a network of close and rewarding relationships, even 'you don't know what you got til it's gone.'

I like to think of this story, though, as talking about the betrayal of so many of the promises modern culture holds out to us regarding happiness. Philippe's story, at least the part of it captured in Man on Wire, seems to fit the prototype of someone who labors with like-minded intimates toward a grand dream, only to be seduced by the shimmering mirage of fame, wealth, and adulation. From my vantage point, it seems incredible that someone would sacrifice a group of friends who were so clearly compatible, and with whom a rich little world had been built. Every credible theory of happiness and meaning in life says that such a tight network of friends is about the best we can wish for in life. In contrast, our cultural blueprint for fulfillment in life - the quest for riches, fame, adulation, beauty, and status - has a 'dark side' (Kasser & Ryan, 1993). People who strive for these things almost always show up in research as experiencing lower well-being and happiness. Lest you think that psychologists keep studying hippies, it's important to note that even materialistic business school students are less happy than their less materialistic colleagues (Kasser & Ahuvia, 2001).

What makes the sad epilogue of Man on Wire so shocking is that Philippe Petit seems like someone who is in such close contact with the moment-to-moment experience of life, facing and embracing the risk at the heart of living. Research leads us to believe that it is those people who avoid such contact with experience who are the most prone to falling into the dead-end trap of materialism; foregoing a life of meaning (Kashdan & Breen, 2007). One hopes that Philippe, Annie, Jean Louis, Jim, and the others who made the walk on wire possible have once again filled their lives with the world's most precious resource - friends for the journey - and are happy.

I'm left hanging by your story about the abandonment of Philippe's friends. I don't have enough details to agree with your thesis, since you don't furnish any information about what his girlfriend and other close collaborators experienced in relation to him after fame caught up with him. I can't say yea or nay about your thesis, because I don't have enough back-story to evaluate. I don't know if any of those "left behind" can be reached for comment, or if they would be forthcoming with their reactions to their experience or your story. I don't know if this lack can be rectified or not.

In the movie, his closest friends, Annie and Jean Louis, cry as they struggle to describe how Philippe simply disappeared from their lives as soon as he descended the towers in police custody. Philippe, himself, describes his first act upon being released by the police as having sex with the first female groupie who offered herself to him. He acknowledges being aware that his longtime girlfriend, Annie, was waiting for him at the time. His casual collaborators did not seem particularly close, nor disturbed by events, but his closest compatriots are at a loss to explain what happened to them (at least in the movie; what they have been up to over the last 30 years does not seem to be well documented).

I hope this helps fill in some of the details, but in the end, I am not trying to treat this story as a case study, but rather a meditation on what stories could be told from Man on Wire.

First, it should be understood that Philippe did NOT desert his friends the moment he came down from the wire at the World Trade Center.
The director chose to edit the interviews in such a way that their tears are mistaken as coming for the loss of a friend, rather than the remembrance of a moment of ecstasy that will never be repeated in their lives. In fact, they too, were all living in the moment when they were being interviewed. In fact, Philippe introduced the director to all of his friends, and gathered them in Paris so they could all be interviewed at the same time for the film.

For forty years, Philippe remained best friends with Jean-Louis Blondeau (who did not help carry the heavy cable, that was Jean-François Heckel; Jean-Louis did shoot the arrow, but his rigging of the wire was entirely as per Philippe's instructions), as well as keeping in close contact with his then girlfriend, Annie Allix and a long-distance relationship with Jean-François who moved to Africa shortly after the walk.

It is unfortunate that the director in the aim of adding poignancy to his film chose to so clearly distort a lifetime of friendships.
One should watch the interview with Philippe Petit on the extras of the DVD if they'd like to know the real truth.

A group of friends and I watched the inspiring Man on Wire, and we were so moved that we watched all the DVD extras. We loved the short film made by James Ricketson of the Sydney Harbour Bridge exploit! But what we all really found enlightening was the interview with Philippe Petit.
It's difficult to understand what "anonymous" is referring to when he suggests one should not watch the interview with Petit. Petit is self-effacing and generous when he describes his friends and certainly makes it clear that the director took liberties in his depiction of what occurred immediately following the now iconic walk. Also, the interview answers other questions (for example, how the "coup" was paid for) that the director neglects to cover in the film.
My friends and I were also wondering why "anonymous" needs to be anonymous. Is it maybe that's just what people do when they have their own problems they're trying to hide? Two of our group have watched Petit street juggle many times in NYC, and after his show, he's always been unselfish and kind with anyone who would like to speak with him. Sure doesn't seem to us to be a man who lives in "celebrityville" but again, maybe "anonymous" has some personal ax to grind.
We suggest that people make their own decisions about watching the extras on the DVD, we certainly all think they're a welcome and illuminating addition to a wonderful film.

If you want to know about Petit's 'friends' that helped him make the WTC walk possible I suggest you don't watch an interview with Petit. Why would he want to make public this 'character flaw' that he has of using people and then discarding them when he no longer needs them. His intention from the beginning was to gain 'FAME' and to become a world known artist. He accomplished this and moved onto his 'new' friends in celebrityville. Deborah Winger, Sting, etc.
Not one of his friends are in contact with him! There is a reason for that.

When i watched the documentary I didn't interpret the tears as having been resultant of loss of Philippe as a friend. Until reading this article it never occurred to me that any of them, with the exception of Annie, weren't friends with him anymore. There must've been some kind of subtext that I missed somewhere along the line because I interpreted the emotion as coming from the same reason I had tears in my eyes-- just because of the sheer momentousness of the feat that this group of people undertook. I didn't watch the DVD version so I haven't seen the aforementioned interview with Philippe, so apparently I'm missing out. I just stumbled upon this article while wondering whatever happened to Annie.

I have the feeling that Philippe was that good person with a great group of friends who was pursuing his own dream. He made all possible attempts to accomplish what he wanted. So far nothing wrong with that. What I found disappointing and it's when his bad side of personality arises, is when instead of celebrating THEIR triumph with his girlfriend he preferred the girl that offered herself to him. The second was the part when his friend Jean-Louis cries as if holding in something that he has deeply inside, a kind of betrayal that he felt after fame. I guess the director had a long time to get to know PP , get an idea of him and put it in the documentary.

Without doubt, friends for the course of life are one of the if not the most precious gift we have. The incredibly poor treatment of his girlfriend by Phillipe is counter to treasuring this gift. Sad part of this story.